Search » The Florida E-Discovery Case Law Database » Levin College of Law » University of Florida

Search Results

Found 1 result(s).

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. M1 5100 Corp., d/b/a Jumbo Supermarket, Inc.

Case Date: 07/02/2020
Citation: 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117243
Court Type: Federal District
Court: Southern District of Florida (S.D. Fla.)
Judge: Federal Magistrate Judge: William Matthewman
Rule(s): Federal Rules of Civ. P. 26(g)(1) and 34
Issues:

The plaintiff complained of the defendant’s discovery responses. The plaintiffs concerned were resolved by agreement except for a response to an interrogatory and a response to a request for production. The plaintiffs sought a motion to compel including a request for direct inspection of the defendant’s media and for attorney fees. The plaintiff argued the production was deficient in that defendant only produced 22 documents in a significant age discrimination case and that defendant’s counsel failed to supervise the defendant’s location, collection, search, and production of documents.

Resolution:

The court found that defendant’s counsel was required under Fed.R. Civ. P. 26(g) to oversee the defendant’s efforts to respond to the plaintiff’s request for production. Citing In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 9249652, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2017), the court noted that “self-collection by a layperson of information on an electronic device is highly problematic and raises a real risk that data could be destroyed or corrupted.” The court, however, declined to permit direct inspection noting that such orders require careful precautions to avoid the improper release of proprietary, confidential, and personally identifiable ESI. The court deferred action on that part of the motion requesting direct inspection and fees and ordered the defendant’s counsel to meet and confer with the plaintiff’s counsel in a last opportunity to resolve the production issue, to adhere to counsel’s obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g), and for the defendant’s counsel to so advise the defendant.

Relevant Documents:

Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel A Privilege Log, Better Discovery Responses, and Fees

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery

Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants Opposition to Better Discovery Responses

E-Discovery Issues: Discovery Order, Ethics, Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Compel
E-discovery Tags: Forensic Analysis/Examination, Keyword Search, Privacy, Sanctions
E-discovery subjects: Electronically stored information